Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal against the conviction of two appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution case was that a dispute over drainage blockage led to a quarrel between two families, during which Accused No.2 shot the deceased and Accused No.1 fired at other family members, injuring them. The trial court convicted the two appellants, acquitting three co-accused, and the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the sustainability of the conviction on grounds of contradictory eyewitness testimony, defective investigation, and medical evidence inconsistent with the prosecution narrative. The prosecution relied on twelve witnesses, including close relatives of the deceased—sons PW2, PW3, PW10, daughter PW5, and daughter-in-law PW6—who claimed to have witnessed the shooting. However, their testimonies suffered from material contradictions with their Section 161 CrPC statements. For instance, PW5 and PW6 were not mentioned in the First Information Statement, and their statements about being injured and their presence at the scene were contradicted. The Investigating Officer (PW12) conducted no effective investigation: no scene map was prepared, no blood-stained clothes were seized, no weapon was recovered, and the licence for the alleged firearm was not produced. The body of the deceased was taken to the police station rather than the hospital, which the Court found suspicious. The postmortem doctor (PW11) testified that the gunshot injury would not cause instantaneous death and that the deceased could have survived for 3-6 hours, directly contradicting the prosecution's claim of immediate death. A defence witness (DW1) stated that he saw a group of people carrying lathis and guns around a prostrate man, shouting slogans of Inqilab Zindabad, indicating possible Naxal involvement. The Court reasoned that the eyewitnesses were all interested relatives whose statements did not inspire confidence due to contradictions and omissions. The investigation lapses were severe, including failure to recover the weapon, failure to prove the accused had a licensed firearm, and failure to prepare a scene map. The medical evidence further created doubt because the injury was not necessarily fatal instantaneously, and the body was not taken to a hospital. The Court invoked the principle from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which restrains conviction when a hypothesis of innocence exists. Applying this principle, the Court held that the circumstances did not lead solely to guilt and a lingering reasonable doubt existed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Common Intention - Eyewitness testimony of interested witnesses - Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction cannot be sustained when the sole eyewitnesses are close relatives and their statements suffer from contradictions and omissions vis-à-vis Section 161 CrPC statements - The prosecution relied on sons, daughter, and daughter-in-law of the deceased; contradictions in PW5 and PW6 statements undermined their presence at scene; Held that the evidence did not inspire confidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 5-7, 13). B) Criminal Law - Arms Act Offences - Investigation lapses in weapon recovery and license proof - Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 - Non-recovery of the murder weapon, absence of scene map, and failure to produce firearms license created reasonable doubt about accused's access to weapon - The Investigating Officer did not recover any weapon, did not prepare scene map, and failed to prove that any accused had a licensed firearm; Held that these lapses weakened prosecution case and supported hypothesis of innocence (Paras 9, 17-18). C) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Contradiction between eyewitness claim of instantaneous death and postmortem opinion of survival - Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The body was taken to police station instead of hospital, and the doctor opined the deceased could survive 3-6 hours after the gunshot injury, contradicting the prosecution claim of immediate death; Held that this created suspicion about the actual sequence of events and the credibility of eyewitnesses (Paras 11, 13-14, 17). D) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Hypothesis of innocence - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra principle - Circumstances did not lead solely to hypothesis of guilt; lingering reasonable doubt existed - The Supreme Court invoked the principle that if a hypothesis of innocence is available, conviction cannot be recorded; Held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and appellants were entitled to acquittal (Para 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in affirming conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 despite contradictions in eyewitness testimony, defective investigation, and medical evidence incompatible with prosecution narrative; and whether the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt when hypothesis of innocence exists
- Conviction cannot rest on interested witness testimony contradictions
- Investigation lapses vitiate prosecution case
- Medical evidence must be consistent with eyewitness account
- Non-recovery of weapon and failure to prove license create reasonable doubt
